LexGUNENDRA NATH MITRA versus SATISH CHANDRA HUI AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
•. .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 277 GUNENDRA NATH MITRA v. • SATISH CHANDRA HUI AND OTHERS. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, DAS and BHAGWATI JJ.] Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859), ss. 6, 13, 14, 37- Estate consisting of separate shares-Sale of aU the shares for arrears due from each-Whether sale of entire estate-Purchaser's right to annul under-tenures-Form of notification of sale, importance of. Under the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859) if the Collector proposes to sell the entire estate where there are separate accounts for the several shares which constitute the estate, he has first to close the separate account or accounts or merge them into one demand and then he has to issue a notifica- tion for the sale of the entire estate under s. 6 of the Act and it is only when the Collector has followed this procedure that he would have authority to bring to sale the entire estate. Where a tonzi was held in two shares in respect of which separate accounts were kept in the Collector's records and, as the shares were in arrears a notification was issued putting up for sale the two separate units of the estate ancl showing the separate items of arrears due from each unit, and both the shares were sold: Held, that the sale cannot be treated as a sale of the entire estate even though tbe two shares constituted the whole estate, and the purchaser was not entitled to the privileges conferred on the purchaser of an entire estate by s. 37 of the Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act, 1859. The notification issued under s. 6 of the Act was conclusive as to whether the subject-matter of the sale was the entire estate or the separate shares constituting the estate. CrvrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 173 of 1951. Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated February 22, 1949, of the High Court .,.,. of Judicature at Calcutta (Blank and Lahiri JJ.) in Appeal from Original Decree No. 23 of 1944 arising out of ,Judgment and Decree dated August 2-5, 1943, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Zilla Midna- pore, in Title Suit No. 30 @f 1941. Panchanan Ghose (S.N. Mukherjee, with him) for the appellant. Sarat Chandra Jana and Bijay Kumar Bhose for respondent No. 1. Arun Kumar Dutta for respondents Nos. 2 (b) a.nd 15. 195:1 Dec, 2, 278 SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S [1953) 1952 1952. December 2. 'l'he Judgment of the Court G d-" ti was delivered by uneii ra .ua i Mitra <MAHAJAN J.-The circumstances under which this v0• appeal arises are as follows: Satish handra . Hui Tonzi No. 2409 of the Mtdnapore Oollectorate con- and Others. sis ts of severnl mou?.as incl udiug mouza D iugol. The annual l[l,nd revenue payable in respect of the entire Mahajan J. touzi is Rs. 2,892-8-0. This touzi was distributed into two shares, one being a separate account bearing No. 24l1/l and the other being the residuary share. Both these shares came in course of time to be held by a single person, viz., Jiban Krishna Ghosh and from him they devolved upon his two sons, Sudhir Krishna Ghosh and Sunil Krishna Ghosh, defendants 2 and 3 in the present snit. Both the two accounts were recorded in their names as joint proprietors. Under touzi No. 2409 there was a patni which in- cluded monza Dingo!. In the year 1885 Kritibas Hui purchased a share of the said patni. His father Ram- nath Hni purchased some- transferable occupancy ryoti lands under the said patni. These lands are described in schedule " Ka" of the plaint. Kritibas Hni, while he was a co-sharer patnidar, purch:tsed some transferable ryoti lands under the patni describ- ed in schedule" l\ba" of the plaint. Kritibas Hui died in the year 1906 or 1907 and his father Ram- nath died in tbe year 1908 or 1909 soon after the deatb of his son. On tbe death of .Kritibas Hui, the plaintiffs, four in number, being his sons and nepbews, inherited the patni and the other properties left by him. Subsequently on the death of Ramnath, the ../ plaintiffs while they were co-sharer patnidars, inherit- ed the aforesaid transfernble occupancy ryoti lands under the patni purchased by Ramnath. Occupancy' ryoti lands in schedule " Ga" of the plaint were purchased by the plaintiffs by different kabalas' on different dates, after they had inherited the lands mentioned in schedu Jes "Ka " and "Kha" of tho plaint. Similarly the niskar lands mentioned in schedule" Gha" of the plaint were purchased by . , ., - S.C.R. SUPREME ooUk
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.